Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
3. If it was just local, why didn't God just tell him to move
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.
One quick partial answer is that the world's terrain changed during the flood. Picture catastrophic geological uplifts and subsidence radically changing the face of our planet.To be honest I've never really given it much though, just always assumed the flood was global (and still lean that way). But I would ask if the flood was global (as in water covering all land), where did all the water go? It wouldn't have anywhere to retreat too. Any help?
I have done some very quick math, and was very, very conservative on it.
Let's say that when God said let them be fruitful and multiply, he only allowed them 1 child every 5 yrs. Well, based on their years of living, Adam would have had 160 kids. Then, that would be 80 couples (perfect world here) and the next generation has 80 kids...and I know my math is somewhat flawed.
But the math I did, gave me 629 145 600 000 000, which, I am not even sure what number that is (quadrillion I think). So with this kind of potential population...and this is only with a child ever 5 yrs...and Adam was the only one that didn't see Noah, so they were all living at the time.....how can they all live within a few thousand square miles?
I am leaning towards a global flood.....now just quick, imagine with twins, triplets and so on......
One of the strongest arguments for believing in creation rather than naturalistic evolution is the complex, fragile nature of ecosystems. If you take any recognizable ecosystem, say a marshland, a remove just a few key species, the marshland can no longer survive.
So, the problem with a global flood is the absolute devastation of plant life. If you have a flood covering the whole earth up to the mountains, enough to kill off literally every single animal on the face of the globe not in the ark, you lose almost all the plant life, too. Furthermore, you can't repopulate that plant life. Noah didn't take samples of all the plant species in the ark. What would the animals eat when they got out of the ark? And, I really have no idea what the answer to this question is, how would the salt and fresh water separate back out in such a scenario?
Now, it's possible that my tenuous knowledge of botany and ecology has led me astray. But, I've come across these objections before, and I've never really seen an answer to them. I'd love to hear one, though.
Gen 8:6-11
6At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made 7and sent forth a raven. It went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth. 8Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground. 9But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him. 10He waited another seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark. 11And the dove came back to him in the evening, and behold, in her mouth was a freshly plucked olive leaf. So Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth.
I have done some very quick math, and was very, very conservative on it.
Let's say that when God said let them be fruitful and multiply, he only allowed them 1 child every 5 yrs. Well, based on their years of living, Adam would have had 160 kids. Then, that would be 80 couples (perfect world here) and the next generation has 80 kids...and I know my math is somewhat flawed.
But the math I did, gave me 629 145 600 000 000, which, I am not even sure what number that is (quadrillion I think). So with this kind of potential population...and this is only with a child ever 5 yrs...and Adam was the only one that didn't see Noah, so they were all living at the time.....how can they all live within a few thousand square miles?
I am leaning towards a global flood.....now just quick, imagine with twins, triplets and so on......
This calculation doesn't take into account the deadly effects of man's sinfulness during the antediluvian era of all but unrestrained evil.
---------- Post added at 12:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 AM ----------
In other words, you have no idea how many of those ended up as casualties prematurely. That would tend to limit the population somewhat.
Andres, the olive leaf itself seems to point toward a regional flood. Olive trees aren't that tall, maybe 50 feet or so. And they grow mostly in coastal (low elevation) regions. So, this water wipes out all the animals on the planet everywhere - kills them - but there are intact leaves on a standing olive tree in the middle of a flood zone?
. And they grow mostly in coastal (low elevation) regions.
That is the OEC flood position. However, I would substitute the word nature for natural revelation (although the OEC position I held does use the word "natural revelation" in the way your post expresses; indeed, I think that is an important part of the OEC position). Incidentally, this is also the kind of argument for long ages in the days of Creation that I held to and knew about too. A similar argument is that the Scripture is ambiguous and/or silent on these issues and so we must turn to science to see what happened.Dearly Bought said:Here's my understanding of the OEC flood position:
1. The study of natural revelation necessarily excludes a geographically universal flood.
2. The text of Scripture does not require a flood which was geographically universal.
3. The text of Scripture does require a flood which was anthropically universal insofar as it encompassed the entirety of human civilization.
4. A geographically local yet anthropically universal flood is consistent with the testimony of both natural and special revelation.
According to one YEC theory, look at our modern oceans. From what I understand, the (simplified) idea is that the land sunk underneath the water and then geological activity raised land above the water again.Sviata Nich said:But I would ask if the flood was global (as in water covering all land), where did all the water go?
What did the author of Genesis 9 mean by using the word "earth". Did he have conception of a globe?
. And they grow mostly in coastal (low elevation) regions.
Did you even bother to look it up? Or did you look up Armenia's elevation? Or do you think that's a poetic exaggeration as well?
3. If it was just local, why didn't God just tell him to move
This is a good point, one I've never thought of before. Thanks for pointing it out.
I was preaching through 2 Peter recently, and this passage from chapter 3 stood out to me with regard to this subject:
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.
Besides noting that the mockers hold to a form of uniformitarianism ("everything continues just as it was from the beginning of creation"), verse 6 clearly states that it was the world (kosmos) that was destroyed by flooding. I'm sure someone has come up with a way of exegetically getting around this, but it seems pretty straightforward to me.
Speaking of ways of exegetically getting around this...
Some who hold to Old Earth Creationism do not believe the flood mentioned in 2 Peter 3 refers to Noah's flood. Rather, some that hold to Gap Creationism (or the Gap theory) believe there was a universal flood between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 and this is what is being referred to in 2 Peter 3. So beginning with Gen 1:3 we have re-creation. Then they typically hold that Noah's flood was a local flood.
For the record, I didn't claim it was good exegesis...
But since you mentioned it, does anyone of note really hold to the Gap Theory anymore?
But since you mentioned it, does anyone of note really hold to the Gap Theory anymore?
Well, i'm not sure of anyone truly noteworthy...but if you have satellite TV it is hard to miss the Shepherd's Chapel program with Arnold Murray who teaches Gap theory (along with Old Earth Creationism and the regional flood of Noah). The only reason I'd consider him "noteworthy" is because of the number of people he has the potential to "reach" with his bad/heretical theology (and the list is long).
If you aren't familiar with him, here is a nice little summary at CARM: Shepherd's Chapel | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
if you have satellite TV it is hard to miss the Shepherd's Chapel program with Arnold Murray who teaches Gap theory (along with Old Earth Creationism and the regional flood of Noah).